Google's aggressive stance with Android Wear, putting industrial design -- rather than tech specs or bundled software -- at the forefront, reveals the makings of a strategy designed to take on Apple at their own game.

Motorola's Moto 360 Andoid Wear-powered smart watch | Source: Google

In 2012, former iPad engineer Patrick Gibson floated a controversial theory: Google is getting better at what Apple does faster than Apple is getting better at what Google does, and that's a problem for Apple.

Google's software prowess has never been in question. They've bolstered an already technically formidable hardware team by bringing in a host of ex-Apple employees with the Nest Labs acquisition, including former iPod chief Tony Fadell, and held on to Motorola's advanced research division when flipping the handset maker to Lenovo.

Now, with the smart watch-focused Android Wear in tow, Google is set to put that theory to the test.

IBM's WatchPad, Fossil's Wrist PDA, and a Fossil-brand SPOT watch

Where have you been all my life?

IBM arguably defined the concept of the modern smart watch -- apologies to Dick Tracy -- in 2001 with the WatchPad, a Linux-powered device designed in collaboration with Japanese watchmaker Citizen. It sported a 320-pixel-by-240-pixel monochrome display, Bluetooth wireless connectivity, and a fingerprint sensor that IBM wanted to use for personal identity verification and even cashless payments.

Fossil followed up with the Wrist PDA, which impressively packed the then-popular Palm OS and a touchscreen into, well, a watch-sized Palm Pilot. Then came watches based on Microsoft's ill-fated SPOT system, and more recently manufacturers have taken to shoehorning Android into what are essentially tiny all-in-one computers with a wrist strap.

They all failed.

IBM's WatchPad never made it to market, the Wrist PDA was discontinued in less than three years, Microsoft shuttered the SPOT service in 2008, and the best-selling Android smart watch -- Samsung's Galaxy Gear -- was replaced after 6 months and is thought to have sold less than 800,000 units despite a massive ad blitz.

Android chief Sundar Pichai

Enter Google

Google is intimately familiar with the challenges facing the wearable market. As Android's benevolent overlord, they're witness to the behind-the-scenes struggles of hardware partners; as the creators of Google Glass, they collect feedback directly from consumers grappling with the unexplored reality of wearing a computer.

From these observations came Android Wear, and Google made their opinion clear: they think everyone else was doing it wrong.

Consumers won't be snapping photos, playing tiny games of Angry Birds, or surreptitiously browsing Reddit on an Android Wear-powered smart watch. Google tells developers in no uncertain terms that they mean for these devices to augment the world around them, not become the focal point.

"Rather than requiring attention and input from users, Android wearables are aware of their situation and state, and helpfully display the right information at the right time," the company wrote of the theory behind Android Wear's design.

Every major Android handset vendor is on board with the effort: LG and Motorola have already announced Android Wear devices to ship this summer, and Asus, HTC, and Samsung -- even as it seeks to replace Android with the in-house Tizen system -- won't be far behind. Google has even convinced fashion brand Fossil to return to the smart watch game.

More importantly, thanks to Android Wear's opinionated design, those manufacturers will have no choice but to compete on hardware rather than wasting resources trying to outdo each other on largely useless Android customizations. Google has saved the OEMs from themselves, and the benefits are already on display -- Motorola's Moto 360 looks like a tour de force of engineering.

Et tu, Apple?

If this formula -- take an existing product category, add more robust software and better-made hardware, profit -- sounds familiar, that's because it is. It's Apple's specialty; they did it with the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad to great success.

So what about the iWatch?

Presuming the iWatch project is real, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is, it will mark the first time Apple has entered a market with such significant opposition. Nokia and Motorola couldn't compete with Apple's design chops and vertical integration, but Google and their manufacturing partners can match Apple blow-for-blow.

Though they continue to partner with OEMs like LG for their "pure Google" Nexus devices, Google knows how to build its own hardware thanks to years of designing and manufacturing custom networking gear and recent experiments with the admittedly ill-fated Q streamer and Google Glass. Many believe they're ramping up to do the same in smartphones and tablets, one more step in their march toward Apple-like top-to-bottom control.

Much digital ink has been spilled in the debate over whether Apple can still compete in the post-Steve Jobs era. Their approach to this looming battle with Google should provide the answer.

Originally Posted by AppleInsiderit will mark the first time Apple has entered a market with such significant opposition.

What the hell is this? Apple was rarely the first in any market... last time I checked, smart phones were around before the iPhone. Tablets were around before the iPad. Music players were around before the iPod. Please Mr. AI "Author", elaborate in detail what you meant by "first time". It's just plain wrong.

The only difference with the "iWatch" or whatever Apple decided to do in this area, is that other players like Samsung, and now Google have been coming out with sheer crap, simply to say they came out before Apple did and not look like copycats. Of course, it won't matter because once Apple comes into the game, everyone else will simply copy what Apple did, and then claim their copy-device was simply an "evolving" design.

Apple shows the rest of the industry just how bad and clueless they are when it comes to quality, polished products.

Googe crap is just for the tech-heads that feel they need to play with their hardware while in a restaurant setting.

The more I read about this Google watch the more I am impressed with the concept and the more doubts I have about the actual product. The software interface that Google has created is stunning, but it is also the easy part. Touch screen, voice control (mic and speakers), dial illumination, activity monitoring…so many things to be powered. How? The watch is almost presented as a stand-alone device, but I imagine it will work in tandem with a smartphone, probably only ones with the newest version of Android. That might limit its initial usability. Bluetooth - another power requirement. The Motorola mockup watch faces give the impression there may be a real watch movement involved. How can they fit it all in the size of that mockup? Or are those watch faces just digital images? Again - power? And this is all going to come to market this summer? So many questions unanswered. Something just strikes me as wrong. I keep thinking of the old saying, "if its too good to be true…"

Apple certainly isn't 'at war'. Which is why they haven't rushed to at least announce things. They have been very clear over the years this isn't a zero sum game to them and they aren't afraid of other companies plans, products or wins.

Oh and Android Wear has hardly had millions of sales so I'm not sure it qualifies as 'significant opposition' at this time. Same with the rest

Honest question here... What's the market's desire for an iWatch? I saw Google's announcement, but I have no desire to have one myself--be it Apple or Android.

Do you want a wearable? If so... why?

I do! I want something that records biometrics and keeps track of them over a long period of time by periodically syncing with my iPhone which syncs with iCloud. I also want some basic features like telling the time, weather, and seeing the from of certain senders or message types via a vibration but only when a specific accelerometer and gyroscopic motion is observed by the device that tells it I'm lifting my wrist up in a certain way to read it. Most importantly, I want this wrist-worn device to know when it's been clasped to my wrist and when it's been removed so that it can be used with an iOS-based iDevice or Mac to allow for auto-locking/unlocking with the BT connection.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

It looks like the Android Wear partners have not learned from the television and Wallet disasters. The partners are rushing into the wearable market depending 100% on Google to be there for them with a software direction. The sad and funny things are the same... Google is in this to collect the partner's user data. If the partners earn money, fine. If the partners do not earn money, fine. Google does not care since the hardware partners are willingly locking themselves to Google.

We have seen Sony and Samsung repeatedly fail wth their Android watch efforts because they repeatedly chose to rush uninspiring products to market "to beat Apple". Now Google rushes Google Wear to market and the press decides to start a war between Google and Apple to promote Google and force Apple to respond. Apple did not release a television and Google TV failed. Apple did not release an e-payments system and Google Wallet is still trying to find purpose. Google Q was dead before arrival. Google Glass... %uD83D%uDE09

Everybody wants to be somewhere before Apple. The problem is where is somewhere? What does somewhere give me for my money? What will compell me to hand over cash for a watch? Weather? Stocks? Reminders? Email? Calendar? No! I want something so compelling that I will want to put a watch on my wrist. Android Wear is not doing that for me today.

Forbes, Quartz and Motley Fool have articles about Google's supposed first mover advantage over App,e thanks to Android Wear. In my opinion, all of the articles missed something truly interesting about Apple iOS developers... We are not sitting idly and waiting for Apple to move forward with an iWatch. We are thinking about "Why would I wear a smartwatch since I do not wear a watch today?", "If I were to wear a smartwatch, what would I want the watch to provide me?", "How would I present information on a small display?"

When I started iPad development before the iPad was officially release, I drew a rectangular shape matching the announced iPad dimensions on a piece of paper, made hundreds of copies of the shape, then imagined what I could and should do using the current iOS interface. I have not done this yet for the rumored iWatch but I am thinking about the answers for my questions. The Android Wear partners do not seem to be providing answers to the questions nor do they seem to be asking the questions.

IF Apple does announce a smartwatch, look for Android Wear to change direction very quickly to match everything Apple announces.

The more I read about this Google watch the more I am impressed with the concept and the more doubts I have about the actual product. The software interface that Google has created is stunning, but it is also the easy part. Touch screen, voice control (mic and speakers), dial illumination, activity monitoring…so many things to be powered. How? The watch is almost presented as a stand-alone device, but I imagine it will work in tandem with a smartphone, probably only ones with the newest version of Android. That might limit its initial usability. Bluetooth - another power requirement. The Motorola mockup watch faces give the impression there may be a real watch movement involved. How can they fit it all in the size of that mockup? Or are those watch faces just digital images? Again - power? And this is all going to come to market this summer? So many questions unanswered. Something just strikes me as wrong. I keep thinking of the old saying, "if its too good to be true…"

I can answer a couple of your questions. First of all there is no real watch movement inside the Moto 360. The watch faces are digital (and adjustable) and the screen of the Moto 360 is oled. And it is suggested that it uses the Moto X's Active Display (activating individual pixels to save power, everything black are switched off pixels) to show the time at all times. Android Wear works with Android 4.3 and up (because of Bluetooth LE requirements). They work together with your smartphone and are not complete stand alone devices.

The lead designer of the Moto 360 didn't yet detail the exact charging method of the Moto 360, but it doesn't have any physical inputs (like usb) so wireless charging is most likely. He also stressed that power management was central to the design of the Moto 360 but no real details have been given at this moment in time, I guess we will get more information at Google I/O. Also interesting is that app developers don't need to make any modifications, if the app uses notifications in Android they also will automatically work with Google Wear, including actions if the notification is actionable in Android.

And yes the Moto 360 is indeed scheduled for Summer 2014 release. I must say that it is the first smartwatch that I am interested in buying if everything turns out like now depicted. I'm pretty sure though it will come at a premium price.

I think the biggest point? Growth in both iOS and android is likely to be near the plateau. Lines are drawn. Simply, most people are eithe Android OR iOS at this point. So this is just an extension of the ecosystem.

I think the biggest point? Growth in both iOS and android is likely to be near the plateau. Lines are drawn. Simply, most people are eithe Android OR iOS at this point. So this is just an extension of the ecosystem.

There are only three categories unless some dramatic changes are forthcoming:

What the hell is this? Apple was rarely the first in any market... last time I checked, smart phones were around before the iPhone. Tablets were around before the iPad. Music players were around before the iPod. Please Mr. AI "Author", elaborate in detail what you meant by "first time". It's just plain wrong.

The only difference with the "iWatch" or whatever Apple decided to do in this area, is that other players like Samsung, and now Google have been coming out with sheer crap, simply to say they came out before Apple did and not look like copycats. Of course, it won't matter because once Apple comes into the game, everyone else will simply copy what Apple did, and then claim their copy-device was simply an "evolving" design.

Apple shows the rest of the industry just how bad and clueless they are when it comes to quality, polished products.

Googe crap is just for the tech-heads that feel they need to play with their hardware while in a restaurant setting.

Great response. I agree with you. Apple May come late but they tend to do it better. I wonder if no iPhone what the heck we would be using as smartphones as far aesthetics and the like. No one can stay on top forever but I'm not counting Apple out yet.

The challenge is not in making cool devices or software. The unique gift of Apple has been in Apple's DNA, I.e., in feature selection ("the intersection of tech & liberal arts", Apple's vision), and execution (fit within customer needs, and other Apple products).

No one needed Apple to make a music player, smartphone, or computer. Apple brought its unique vision and uncanny execution to these devices. There are other areas than products where this DNA-- vision and execution-- is evident. iTunes Store, Retail stores, Pixar (ok, technically Disney), Apps (concept and execution), etc.

Apple has failed-- Newton, iCloud, iCards, Ping, etc. etc. They are unabashed about failure, and unfazed by clones because they believe deeply in the uniqueness of their winning formula-- their DNA.

iWatch will not be a watch, not a slave device. It will be a wearable communication dashboard. It will answer the three questions: "how are you, where are you, what are you doing"-- 90% of info needed within personal and productive groups. It will not seek to organize, entertain, inform, or increase productivity. It will measure and monitor (how are you), locate and relay (where are you), and answer "what are you doing" (identify, acknowledge, approve).

This set of functions is unmatched and, minus Apple's ecosystem, unmatchable. Apple is the best firm to deliver this functionality because this is what their entire existence has lead up to. This may be their last huge success, or another "priced in" innovation, but will not be their first cataclysmic failure.

The loss of Steve will lead to many less spectacular wins, not one spectacular failure that blogs keep prophesying.

Apple certainly isn't 'at war'. Which is why they haven't rushed to at least announce things. They have been very clear over the years this isn't a zero sum game to them and they aren't afraid of other companies plans, products or wins.

Oh and Android Wear has hardly had millions of sales so I'm not sure it qualifies as 'significant opposition' at this time. Same with the rest

Well said.

Apple have always had strong competition, even back in the days of Steve Jobs.

When the iPhone was announced, Steve Jobs was asked by a TV news reporter "Why are you entering such a competitive market with the likes of Nokia?"

Apple is all about bringing exceptional products that people love to market.

Those that love Apple products will continue to buy them. As Steve Jobs once said "If you don't like it, then don't buy it!"

Firstly, it sites a theory that Google is catching up with Apple in hardware quicker than Apple is Google on software/services. On the evidence of Google Glass or any other hardware from them, this is unfounded.

Secondly, it suggests that if Apple enters the smartwatch category, it will face more competition than it ever has done in hardware. Yet when it brought out the iPhone, people said that there was no market, it faced an uphill battle due to the entrenched players and that there was intense competition.

When I look at all the smartwatches on the market, I see nothing approaching Apple quality. So, the premise of the article is false.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."- African proverb

Google's aggressive stance with Android Wear, putting industrial design -- rather than tech specs or bundled software -- at the forefront, reveals the makings of a strategy designed to take on Apple at their own game.

Industrial design will beat Apple?

Steve Job's vision was so forward thinking that he used to park in disabled spots before he became sick.

This concept might not seem that exciting to some but that's because it hasn't been marketed yet. Google and Motorola haven't begun marketing. And Apple's ads will make everyone desire an I watch, even if they don't need it.

If this formula -- take an existing product category, add more robust software and better-made hardware, profit -- sounds familiar, that's because it is. It's Apple's specialty; they did it with the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad to great success.

Presuming the iWatch project is real, and the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is, it will mark the first time Apple has entered a market with such significant opposition. Nokia and Motorola couldn't compete with Apple's design chops and vertical integration, but Google and their manufacturing partners can match Apple blow-for-blow.

Which one of these is correct?

Edited by GTR - 3/23/14 at 7:03pm

Steve Job's vision was so forward thinking that he used to park in disabled spots before he became sick.

Honest question here... What's the market's desire for an iWatch? I saw Google's announcement, but I have no desire to have one myself--be it Apple or Android.

Do you want a wearable? If so... why?

Time will tell if there is a 'real' and 'useful' purpose for a wearable or if it is just a 'need' that isn't really there. In my view the primary use will be health and fitness where most people seem to agree there could be a real usefulness. Depending on the health functionality of the wearables it could become something just about everyone over the age of 50 will want / need. That's a huge demographic. Obviously there will be plenty appeal for younger users, too.

I listened to an interesting interview with a developer speaking about how if you measure all your physical activities (through movement), and other activities through geo location recording (by the water, in a McD, at the movies, work, you name it, including food, drink and sleep, and add a few key user inputs such as 'feeling good', 'happy', 'sad' etc., you can quickly extrapolate what kind of situations make you happiest or most productive, etc. Over time you will be able to het real time advice as to a good cause of action to help you stay 'on top', or to avoid 'negative' situations. It sounds fraught with problems but also very interesting. Statistically speaking, if you are happiest when you go to the seaside once a week, or go dancing, you could be promoted to go. Etc etc.

Another thought as to 'why'. If you asked how many of us would want to carry a powerful computer in our pockets with a 4" screen 15 years ago most of us might have asked the same question.

What utter nonsense when the author says "Google knows how to build its own hardware thanks to years of designing and manufacturing custom networking gear and recent experiments with the admittedly ill-fated Q streamer and Google Glass."!!!!

Developing and building their own servers is far from actually developing well designed and manufactured consumer devices that are superior to anything else on the market. It isn't even in the same league! As to google glass, producing a few thousand beta products doesn't even come close, and all one has to do is look at these totally geek devices to see what a failure they are. With everyone jumping on this broken bandwagon, it is simply another profitless race to the bottom.

I think Apple could destroy both Google and Samsung by simply floating a long series of fake leaks and rumors designed to throw them off Apple's trail. Let them spend money and resources chasing unicorns while Apple continues to incrementally improve their existing lines and rake in the vast majority of profits.

Great response. I agree with you. Apple May come late but they tend to do it better. I wonder if no iPhone what the heck we would be using as smartphones as far aesthetics and the like. No one can stay on top forever but I'm not counting Apple out yet.

And I thought it was just me that read this and couldn't believe someone at AI let this story fly. All I can say is WOW! This is without doubt, the worst researched article I have ever read on AI. I don't have the time to detail everything that is wrong with this incredibly poorly written mass of words. This author needs to do some research on Apple and it's history before putting something like this out. Though I'm sure it was written just to see how many people would write in to point out how bad it actually is. So I admit, I fell for it.

Next time you decide to write an article comparing Apple and its ability to take on the competition, check with Mr. Dilger, he's on your staff, so he should be able to give you some pointers on how to do research and give you a history lesson. You definitely need it! By the way, and this is an easy prediction to make, when Apple is ready to come out with their next new product, it WILL absolutely blow the lid off of anything that has come before it. All you have to do is dig a little into the new technology and materials Apple has patents on and you may be able to actually see the future. Give it a try. Research can be fun.